I know there has been some speculation on this board in the past about if a nurse with the bare minimum experience should (or could) go to CRNA school. Well, I just got accepted.
I graduated in July 07 with my BSN. I was in a non-health care field prior to my BSN. I immediately went to work at a large teaching hospital in a med surg ICU. I worked very hard to learn everything I could, and I feel like I am currently a very competent ICU nurse.
I have been accepted to my program of choice for fall 08, when I will have one year experience as a nurse.
Understand I am not trying to shortcut anything. I worked very hard on my school studies and my clinical experience to be well prepared. I scored very well on the GRE. I shadowed a CRNA for ~ 40 hours. I have a 3.7~3.8 GPA. I spent my own time understanding the hemodynamics of the cardiopulmonary system, the MOA/effects of different vasopressors. I work with (and understand) vents, settings, therapies.
This route is not for everybody, but I am proof that you can do it. And I feel like I am very well prepared for the program. I just want other potential candidates to know that it can be done.
you have very quickly become quit the expert on the crna profession. per your profile, you have 4.5 years of experience under your belt yet you write like so many of the old, should not be working any more, nurses that lumber through the icu. attempting to limit a potentially very successful (and must be threating) young nurse.
magno79
i would love to heare your definition of how many years experience qualifies you to become a "old, should not be working any more, nurses that lumber through the icu." would that be 5, 10, 15, 20 or more? or could it be that, just like there are great nurses & poor nurses with minimal experience, there are also great nurses & poor nurses with multiple years experience? i have to say i, being what you probably consider a fossil in the icu, found your comment a tad condescending toward more experienced nurses. perhaps your feel threatened by those of who have managed to stick with the profession so long. i am well aware that there are many nurses in the unit who are only there to earn that all-might-dollar, just as there are nurses who are only there to do the minimal amount necessary before they move onto bigger & better things, etc. but please realize that many of us "elderly" icu nurses have put a lot of time & effort into becoming experts in our field. many of us are widely published, lecture at conferences, have our services requested to be expert witnesses at trials, etc. because of amount of time we have put into our field that has allowed us to become recognized by our peers & other in the medical profession. so now, if i can get my old rickety bones to cooperate i will take my sad, old, tired, lumbering rear out for a night run. :grn:
We regret to inform you that at this time you have been declined for acceptance into our anesthesia program due to your lack of 6th sense. This requirement is clearly listed in our pre-requisites. Without this mandatory skill you will fail. Please feel free to apply again, 3 years 2 months 17 days and 16 hours from now, when you have aquired your 6th sense.
-Sincerely
Board of Admissions concerned only with years of experience
I am sorry for the misunderstanding. "Old Nurse" is more a state of mind then an age. I have a great deal of respect for people that have good experience. I use them often as resources and due value and trust them in time of need. What I am saying however, is that no one on this thread, who is not a CRNA, has the qualifications or education to say that someone else is not qualified. Even more so if you have never worked with the person.
So, an old nurses is someone that thinks they are better than another. Some one that no longer has time to teach or help out. The saying that "nurses eat their young" is so true. Why on earth would you not encourage someone that is willing to learn. That is the fatal mistake to our career.
I appreciate the clarification. My personal opinion is that anyone who is admitted to a CRNA program probably really deserves it because they are obviously a cut-above the rest. No doubt about it, there are many well qualified nurses who are newbies to ICU (
What I am saying however, is that no one on this thread, who is not a CRNA, has the qualifications or education to say that someone else is not qualified. Even more so if you have never worked with the person.
Magno79
I am a CRNA so I feel very qualified to comment on this. I've made a number of good points on this thread that haven't been responded to with anything of substance. How can someone defend starting anesthesia school (or even interviewing for school) without enough hours to sit for CCRN? How can someone who has less than one year of independent decision making taking care of critically-ill patients be so sure they've learned it all? The lack of self-awareness from many of the "nurses" posting on this thread is really shocking. By saying that you learned everything you need to know about ICU in . Sorry but you won't have virtual hugs or high-fives in the OR - only your skills and experience to get the job done.
I certainly respect your position and your input, but can you tell me what you think are the reasons the AANA and the individuals schools are willing to accept/ interview nurses with 1 yr/ less than 1 yr at interview if it did not produce safe, effective, and prudent CRNAs?
Years ago, students entering anesthesia school did not even have to have any knowledge of vents, drips, etc - they could enter anesthesia school without any critical care experience. I know this because I've talked to some of the experienced CRNAs (>30 yrs practice). Why was it safe/ effective for them to do it, but not now?
Not putting down your opinion, but truly want to understand why the governing/ accreditation organization and many schools would allow this if it weren't safe & effective?
Specializes in Education, FP, LNC, Forensics, ED, OB.
How can someone defend starting anesthesia school (or even interviewing for school) without enough hours to sit for CCRN? How can someone who has less than one year of independent decision making taking care of critically-ill patients be so sure they've learned it all?
ITA. (The same argument is found with the NP as well). How can any nurse advance their practice with zero to very little/limited RN experience?
I certainly respect your position and your input, but can you tell me what you think are the reasons the AANA and the individuals schools are willing to accept/ interview nurses with 1 yr/ less than 1 yr at interview if it did not produce safe, effective, and prudent CRNAs?
Years ago, students entering anesthesia school did not even have to have any knowledge of vents, drips, etc - they could enter anesthesia school without any critical care experience. I know this because I've talked to some of the experienced CRNAs (>30 yrs practice). Why was it safe/ effective for them to do it, but not now?
Not putting down your opinion, but truly want to understand why the governing/ accreditation organization and many schools would allow this if it weren't safe & effective?
Let me clarify...I personally think that ~2 years critical care experience should be the minimum prior to starting a program thus if someone wants to interview with 1 year experience, I wouldn't be entirely opposed (as they would likely be close to 2 years when starting school). I am opposed to a new grad RN with no other healthcare experience starting school with only 1 year experience because that is not enough time...regardless of how smart you are/hard you work. In addition, many ICU orientation programs for new grads are now 3-9 months long thus an individual starting anesthesia school with one year experience, may only have 3-9 months of independent decision making experience. AANA has the one year minimum and I respect that because someone may have been a paramedic for 9 years prior to becoming an RN, etc. Yes, these things should be left up to admissions committees however the number of spots in anesthesia school has doubled since 2001 - thus it is much easier to get into school now than it was 7 years ago. Some schools have a plethora of very qualified applicants and others, obviously, not so much. Higher education in this country is a business and schools have pressure to fill their slots for tuition dollars. It is the job of all CRNAs to show a vested interest in the type of applicants who are being accepted to schools and the quality of graduates who are being produced.
I am a CRNA so I feel very qualified to comment on this. I've made a number of good points on this thread that haven't been responded to with anything of substance. How can someone defend starting anesthesia school (or even interviewing for school) without enough hours to sit for CCRN? How can someone who has less than one year of independent decision making taking care of critically-ill patients be so sure they've learned it all? The lack of self-awareness from many of the "nurses" posting on this thread is really shocking. By saying that you learned everything you need to know about ICU in . Sorry but you won't have virtual hugs or high-fives in the OR - only your skills and experience to get the job done.[/quote
"You don't know what you don't know." Thanks for the post. This reminds me of the person who posted that the only thing they didn't know about ICU after a year was how to make a bed.
I sometimes think schools are willing to accept those with less proven experience in order to boost the overall acceptance GPA. Those who come straight from a bachelor's program with a good GPA are tempting to accept. If the schools don't accept them right away, they risk losing those students because those potential students might decide to so something else meanwhile instead of working as an RN for a few years. Since it's still competitive to get into anesthesia programs, I don't see the argument of lowering acceptance criteria for monetary reasons because they're going to fill their seats no matter what.
I don't know what the drop-out rate is for anesthesia school, but for NP programs, there's another advantage to allowing direct-entry. Many NPs graduate and end up going back to floor nursing because the pay is better and/or they can choose their hours better (not having to be on-call or the like). If you have NPs who don't have the option of "going back to" floor nursing, then they're more likely to stay in an NP job even if the pay isn't as high as they'd expected.
With the greater use of CRNAs, maybe some are hoping CRNA's won't demand as much in pay if they have no alternative to being a CRNA. That is, facilities won't have to offer CRNA salaries that compete with the pay that experienced ICU nurses can command. Are these thoughts too cynical of me?
mcubed45
434 Posts
lol but seriously, grats dude. i'd personally but more weight on what the board of admissions thinks than a couple of haters on an internet forum.